Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I have a question for a hypothetical argument that i just thought of so it's probably not a good legitimate one by any chance but couldn't someone argue that 'taker is still a draw today while Hogan really isn't? I mean his presence hasn't done TNA that much favors.
Or am i just completely missing the point here with my argument?
I still don't know what the hell Killjoy said.
1. Taker isn't a draw today.
2. I feel you are missing the point
Edit; if you are going to argue Taker is a draw for one day, grand. Give Hulk Hogan an entire year with the WWE's production, and he can do the exact same thing
Oh, wait, actually he did. Wrestlemania X8
Fair enough i guess. I've always figured him as a draw though, usually when he returns his segments get pretty good ratings and he does sell merch, quite a lot of it from live events I've gone to but i could be misinformed.
Either way Sammartino all the way.
If a Aussie or British fan could chime in and answer this scenario...would they pay to see The Deadman? Just the Deadman.
I'm going to give the Taker advocates a hint;
Right now, everyone that's been arguing Taker, have made points that can be just as true for Hogan, if not more so. The merch is a perfect example; besides Steve Austin, Hogan had more merchandise sales for WWE than anyone. And that isn't counting WCW, or the NWO.
If you want to argue Taker, argue something he does better than Hogan. Besides beating wives
I believe I pointed this out.
His in ring ability is better than Hogan's
and he no sells better than Hogan.
No it's not.
No he doesn't.
Australian fans certainly wouldn't. Also; try not to use Australia in any wrestling arguments, we're a small country which barely watches it. You know the saying "In Canada it's a Tradition, in Mexico it's a Religion, in Japan it's a Sport, in America it's a Joke" well add onto it "In Australia it's social suicide to watch"
Ouuuuuuch.
Well ok, the Sting example that Haiku brought. Sting had a run as a successful beach blond surfer and then to the crow gimmick, Calloway has been Taker (not really) all his career.
Hasn't WWE protected him from being humanized? I do find his gimmick as being this Dark Lord is detrimental if you wanna be the face of a company. How silly was Sting's sprite commercial!
Yes it is.
Yes he does.
Ye Ye I saw that.
I have to be honest, I do think he is a draw. I do think he is an attraction that people would pay yo see AND WWE shields him from overexposure.
This was all about the molehill comment, hell, one of the reasons I wanted to come NY by 2012 was so I could Mania and Taker for the first time. I can't begin to tell you how much of a big deal he is South East Asia and is really the first crossover WWE big time talent.
(Sigh) I need another angle.
So, the old "I say it, therefore it's true" argument.
I find it funny you say Hogan's leg drop wouldn't keep Taker down. Mabel beat Taker with a leg drop. Why shouldn't I believe Hogan, who has beaten thousands of opponents with his leg, wouldn't keep Taker down, if Mabel could?
Make sense, but I wish I could show you that Undertaker is a very famous figure in a big chunka land down here. I think he could.
If a Aussie or British fan could chime in and answer this scenario...would they pay to see The Deadman? Just the Deadman.
Because history has shown that Hogan's leg drop is not affective against 'Taker.
Does that work?
If you agree that Hogan's shown that a tombstone won't keep him down![]()